This topic contains 19 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Instead of trying to rehash the old fight here I would like to offer a suggestion on how to improve on the present COTM.
As at best it will always be a popularity contest I would suggest that we accept that it is flawed and discontinue it.
In its place I would suggest we ask cachers that participate in forums to come up with their personal top 10 list. And then on a monthly basis we feature that caches top 10 list.
I would suggest that we would need to have some rules written on this, do we allow a cacher highlight one of their own caches, would be one example. But the only rule I think we would need is the cache has to be ins Wisconsin.
I know if I were asked to give my top 10 that even though I live in SE Wisc I would guess at least 50% would be 100 miles or more from my home
Well, there’s some agreement and disagreement on my part, and I’d be happy to explain.
Cache of the Month has served our organization very well for about seven years now, and while there has been some attempted shenanigans, closely monitored, essentially some of the best caches in Wisconsin have become COTM. I do not believe that every month’s winner is the best cache in Wisconsin at that particular time. I do believe that the current system does highlight caches worth doing. We have personally done at least a third of the caches on that list, and all were at least above average if not among our all-time favorites. Many worthy caches simply will not win because they don’t get the visitation for there to be enough votes.
That is where the Top Ten lists would provide some excellent insight in my mind. I would like to see this, but not as a replacement for COTM, more likely as an ongoing forum topic where we can share discussion. For all the time geocachers spend on these forums, we don’t spend a lot of time actually discussing good caches and why we enjoyed them.
I championed the Recommended Caches forum a couple years back and posted faithfully as we did a lot of very good caches in tucked-away areas, but that forum has never really taken off. I’d like to see some Top Ten lists, and I think I’ll post my own, but not tonight. Time to hang with the family.
Discussion anyone?
@Team Honeybunnies wrote:
Well, there’s some agreement and disagreement on my part, and I’d be happy to explain.
Cache of the Month has served our organization very well for about seven years now, and while there has been some attempted shenanigans, closely monitored, essentially some of the best caches in Wisconsin have become COTM. I do not believe that every month’s winner is the best cache in Wisconsin at that particular time. I do believe that the current system does highlight caches worth doing. We have personally done at least a third of the caches on that list, and all were at least above average if not among our all-time favorites. Many worthy caches simply will not win because they don’t get the visitation for there to be enough votes.
That is where the Top Ten lists would provide some excellent insight in my mind. I would like to see this, but not as a replacement for COTM, more likely as an ongoing forum topic where we can share discussion. For all the time geocachers spend on these forums, we don’t spend a lot of time actually discussing good caches and why we enjoyed them.
I championed the Recommended Caches forum a couple years back and posted faithfully as we did a lot of very good caches in tucked-away areas, but that forum has never really taken off. I’d like to see some Top Ten lists, and I think I’ll post my own, but not tonight. Time to hang with the family.
Discussion anyone?
Agree with the above. I would have a hard time limiting it to 10 though.
z
I would put up my top 10, and like the two of you who have many more than me, I also would have a hard time limiting to just 10. Perhaps we should also ask that you comment on why the cache makes your list also
One other thought is were would we start this thread?
We have very strong feelings about COTM. Last month, my daughter’s cache was nominated by a local cacher. She was very happy about being nominated by someone she had never met. At the same time she had a realization that she would probably never win because others did not know her as well as the oher cachers who were nominated. She looked at some of the other nominated caches and realizedthat there was open lobbying for one of them being done. She told me that she would never do that and as just going to be satisfied that she was nominated.
As the month progressed she got a few more unsolicitedemails telling her about how much they enjoyed her series, she still did not think she would get the votes. Imagine her surprise when she saw her cache at the top of the list in June. I can assure you that she did not seek any votes and it iscertainly not a popularity contest in her case. Those that voted for her cache actually did it and enjoyed it.
Yes, it is very flawed most of the time but in May I think it went the way it was intended to go.
@The Crippler wrote:
We have very strong feelings about COTM. Last month, my daughter’s cache was nominated by a local cacher. She was very happy about being nominated by someone she had never met. At the same time she had a realization that she would probably never win because others did not know her as well as the oher cachers who were nominated. She looked at some of the other nominated caches and realizedthat there was open lobbying for one of them being done. She told me that she would never do that and as just going to be satisfied that she was nominated.
As the month progressed she got a few more unsolicitedemails telling her about how much they enjoyed her series, she still did not think she would get the votes. Imagine her surprise when she saw her cache at the top of the list in June. I can assure you that she did not seek any votes and it iscertainly not a popularity contest in her case. Those that voted for her cache actually did it and enjoyed it.
Yes, it is very flawed most of the time but in May I think it went the way it was intended to go.
I am very happy that it worked out that way. Wonderful, and thank you for sharing. That is how it should work, caches folks appreciate should be the winners, which is what is the intention of COTM is in the first place.
One small change that we could make to COTM is to automatically disqualify any cache that gets more votes for COTM that it has finds. Personally, I lost confidence in the current system when I saw caches win COTM that had more votes than visits.
zuma
I would say that there have been some rather strange winners. One that comes to mind was a cache (now archived) in a lamppost in a bank parking lot. It was part of a series based in Illinois. In reality, the series was fun and had interesting puzzles, but it was basically an Illinois cache, and was already nominated on the GONIL website. No real reason for it to even be on our list, but someone nominated it, and then someone chose to “campaign” for it, getting many area people to vote for it, enough to result in it winning the month.
The problem with this scenario is two fold. First, people use our lists to find caches “worthy of their time” to visit. When people come from out of the area and find that our COTM is a lamppost hide, well, lets just say we don’t come off in the best light. Second, there obviously were some better choices (I hope!) which were denied that COTM spotlight because of this particular choice.
For me, the COTM (and nominees) should represent caches which we feel are among the best caches the state has to offer. This means something different for everyone, but hopefully you think about what that means to you before you nominate or vote.
Would it be possible to nominate caches that have a MINIMUM of 6 monthes published, and a MINIMUM of, say 20 finds, before it can be nominated?
Or is it better to get cachers seeking it before it’s muggled?(Just food for thought).
I would like to see the caches submitted to the BOD or a COTM committee for review before going on the ballot. There could be basic criteria for an allowed nomination like length of time since placed, number of finds, well maintained. This would allow the screening and elimination of undeserving nominees. I read logs on one of this month’s nominations and as unique as it may be it is having problems with water getting into the container. It’s a cache that is only out for a week and has only a few finds. It sounds like a cache that is not going to stand up to the test of time. I personally won’t vote again for a cache that I haven’t found. No matter what you do you will never make everyone happy.
and a MINIMUM of, say 20 finds
Considering many caches that have been nominated in the last say 6 months didn’t have this many and it takes at least 20 more more VOTES to win for a month this is a pretty safe minimum criteria for a nomination.
I personally don’t think we should deny a member nominating a new cache or one with very few finds. Many that have ended up on the list are most likely COTM “worthy” caches. Take for instance Roter Eulenflug (typing off memory so I apologize if I killed this name) by seldom | seen (nominated last month I believe). Worthy of a COTM. Probably (I dnfed it so I cannot fully form an opinion as of yet). Ever going to win a popularity contest vote? Nope. The numbers aren’t there unless one “solicits”.
However, the act of nominating a COTM (like the example above) currently gets the cache bookmarked and as such has value. If there is to be a “screening” of nominations we should not deny the nomination being recognized nor should we deny the bookmark addition of a nominated cache.
Overall I do agree with adding some sort of screening criteria before a vote occurs.
Another idea I have not seen mentioned is a nomination period where nomination is open and then it is closed and THEN voting can begin. It makes no sense to nominate a new cache after 3 weeks of the month. Perhaps allow 2 weeks for nomination and 2 weeks for voting each month. If a new COTM worthy cache comes out in the latter half of a month it’s simply nominated for the following month. I believe this would add value to the current process.
Not sure on how difficult this would be to develop or modify but it could be as “simple” as not allowing to add a new nomination when voting if after a certain numbered day of the month (say 15th?)
What’s wrong with a lamp-post cache winning COTM? Sometimes those are fun too… 😉
I can honestly say that I have gone out of my way in the last 4-5 months to nominate above average caches that I have done, but I honestly don’t think would ever win. My whole objective has been to get quality caches on the list. Two of them that I have nominated would have to go on a person top 10 list
As for the lamppost one, it has to be one of the two worst COTM winners we have done. At least it was part of a great series
@kansas64 wrote:
As for the lamppost one, it has to be one of the two worst COTM winners we have done.
I’ll bite…what was the other?
On the Left Side of the Road...@jimandlinda wrote:
MINIMUM of, say 20 finds,
Well, that eliminates most caches from the north for nomination, plus caches from up north are very unlikely to get maybe more than 3 votes.
@cheezehead wrote:
@jimandlinda wrote:
MINIMUM of, say 20 finds,
Well, that eliminates most caches from the north for nomination, plus caches from up north are very unlikely to get maybe more than 3 votes.
Amen! There’s some very good caches in parts of the state that don’t get a lot of caching activity. This shouldn’t eliminate them from the process.
Oconto...the birthplace of western civilization:)
@jimandlinda wrote:
Would it be possible to nominate caches that have a MINIMUM of 6 monthes published, and a MINIMUM of, say 20 finds, before it can be nominated?
Or is it better to get cachers seeking it before it’s muggled?(Just food for thought).
This is a good idea. I recently did a cemetery cache west of Green Bay that I thought definitely deserved to be recommended for this award. Problem is, it has been active for a few months (2-3 months I believe) and I was the third person to find it. No way would it have a chance right now, so I decided not to nominate it, but it was one of my favorite caches I have done in quite a while.
At least by putting in some requirements or even suggestions for a minimum number of months active and finders it will give people a point of reference for when a good time to nominate a cache would be.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.